‘Sanctuary State’ bill amended but law enforcement still wary

Share this:

California State Senate Pro Tem Kevin de Leon speaks about his proposed Senate Bill 54, the California Values Act, which would make California a sanctuary state ensuring that police, schools, hospitals and courts "remain accessible to Californians from all walks of life," at Diablo Valley College in Pleasant Hill, Calif., on Thursday, March 16, 2017. File photo. (Susan Tripp Pollard/Bay Area News Group)

The California State Sheriffs’ Association remains opposed to the so-called “Sanctuary State” bill despite a number of amendments that weakened the final version, the group announced Tuesday.

Meanwhile, the California Police Chiefs Association said following Monday’s revisions that it has lifted its opposition to SB 54, formally named the California Values Act, which would limit law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities. It’s now taking a neutral stance.

Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, who introduced SB 54, said he made the amendments following negotiations with Gov. Jerry Brown ahead of the anticipated vote on the Assembly floor later this week. The bill aims to curb the use of state and local public resources in aiding federal immigration agents in deportation actions.

“This amended bill addresses about 80 percent of the concerns we had … which is there would have been far too many people, serious and violent criminals, who would have been provided protection and sanctuary as a result of the bill,” Santa Barbara Sheriff Bill Brown, president of the California State Sheriffs’ Association, said in an interview. “There still are some — that is why we remain opposed to the bill after some very careful consideration.”

By limiting law enforcement agencies’ ability to communicate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “it’s the public that (ends) up endangered,” Brown said.

Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens, who remains in opposition to SB 54, echoed the CSSA’s concerns. She noted in a statement that the “bill does not allow for notification to federal authorities, at their request, of the pending release of certain wanted, undocumented criminals — including repeat drunken drivers, misdemeanor hit-and-run drivers and those who assault peace officers.”

However, Angela Chan, policy director and senior staff attorney at the Asian Americans Advancing Justice — Asian Law Caucus, said that anyone convicted of these three offenses can be turned over to ICE under SB 54.

“If they are merely arrested for the charges … and there is no conviction, they cannot be turned over to ICE,” said Chan, who co-authored the bill. “The reason is a shared value by Californians that everyone deserves due process.”

Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell, who has been an outspoken critic of the bill, thanked the governor in a statement Tuesday for working with his department and the California State Sheriffs’ Association. However, he did not say whether the amendments were enough to alleviate his primary concerns.

“As I have said from the very beginning of this dialogue, public safety and the trust we have within the communities we serve is paramount,” McDonnell said.

He noted the CSSA continues to advocate for additional amendments and said he’d have no further comment until the Assembly vote, which is slated to take place by the end of Friday.

Riverside County Sheriff Stan Sniff said in a statement that his department agrees with the CSSA’s opposition to SB 54.

Some sheriffs argue that many of the provisions of the bill, such as prohibiting law enforcement officials from asking about a person’s immigration status, are already standard practice for law enforcement agencies.

Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, who has previously expressed support for the bill, told reporters Tuesday after a police commission meeting that he “will have look at the details of the language” in light of the amendments.

The revised bill significantly expands the list of crimes under which law enforcement has the discretion to notify and transfer a person to immigration authorities.

It also allows immigration authorities to interview individuals in custody, though it prohibits giving immigration authorities permanent office space in jails, according to de Leon’s office.

Chan of Asian Americans Advancing Justice — Asian Law Caucus said her organization opposed the amendments adding over 700 crimes — “the vast majority” of which are nonviolent and nonserious offenses — to the list whereby law enforcement agencies can choose to notify and transfer a person to immigration authorities.

That’s “because any exception to limit prohibitions on local law enforcement entanglement with ICE means families will be separated, immigrants can still be transferred to ICE and deported and community members will have a reason to be fearful of contact with law enforcement,” said Chan, who co-authored SB 54.

Chan said her San Francisco-based organization still supports the bill because even with these amendments, it “does increase protection for immigrants in the vast majority of counties in California.”

The revised bill would also codify the status quo regarding immigration holds — holding inmates longer than their release date so that ICE has extra time to take them into custody — by prohibiting them, Chan said. No law enforcement agency in California is currently known to honor these immigration holds issued by ICE due to Fourth Amendment concerns.

The roughly 800 total offenses covered by SB 54 — the same ones outlined in the state’s TRUST Act of 2013 — will now include a 15-year washout period for jail felonies. That means convictions that are older than 15 years cannot be a basis for turning someone over to ICE, Chan said.

The latest version also clarifies that dozens of mainly drug and property offenses covered by Prop. 47 cannot be a basis for a notification or transfer request, Chan said.

The bill also exempts the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which oversees state prisons, from the bill’s provisions but it does require the department to provide additional protections to immigrant inmates.

“This bill protects public safety and people who come to California to work hard and make this state a better place,” Brown said in a written statement Monday.

Meanwhile, the California Police Chiefs Association explained why it is now taking a neutral stance.

“The compromise reached on Senate Bill 54 does two things: It addresses the significant public safety concerns we raised during this debate, and it reaffirms what we have held since the beginning, which is that California law enforcement should not be used to assist in mass deportations,” Gardena Police Chief Edward Medrano, president of the California Police Chiefs Association, said in part in a statement.

A number of Southern California cities, including Long Beach, continue to support the bill.

Staff writers Elizabeth Chou, Alex Groves, Courtney Tompkins and Anthony Saavedra as well as AP contributed to this report.

Brenda Gazzar is a multilingual multimedia reporter who has worked for a variety of news outlets in California and in the Middle East since 2000. She has covered a range of issues, including breaking news, immigration, law and order, race, religion and gender issues, politics, human interest stories and education. Besides the Los Angeles Daily News and its sister papers, her work has been published by Reuters, the Denver Post, Ms. Magazine, the Jerusalem Post, USA Today, the Christian Science Monitor, the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, The Cairo Times and others. Brenda speaks Spanish, Hebrew and intermediate Arabic and is the recipient of national, state and regional awards, including a National Headliners Award and one from the Associated Press News Executives' Council. She holds a dual master's degree in Communications/Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Texas at Austin.